"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...
Full Story

<quoted text>Peter Singer is one of Obama's favorites, like Holdren and Holder.http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive...Mr. Singer. like Mr. Holdren, also thinks the U.S should make it legal to terminate living children who are handicapped. Strange how he thinks a dolphin fetus has more of a right to life than a living human infant. What kind of person wages war on children? An Obama kind of person.I knew those asbestos undies would come in handy someday.:(

<quoted text>lol! I know son. That's why I keep trying to bring myself down to your level so you can understand.I'm not sure how much lower I can go.You might want to find a five year old who can help you with comprehension!

<quoted text>lol! Son, the reason why you don't get it is because you're already brain damaged.And again, it was done by your choice!

You cannot keep us from talking about the topics forever -brain damaged or not, you should be smart enough to figure that one out.

So much for the Progressive myth/lie that emails were doctored.

Nothing was ďdoctored.Ē Following the House report, Steve Hayes of The Weekly Standard revealed a significant amount of new detail, followed by Jon Karl at ABC News. Both Hayes and Karl refer to summaries of the emails, meaning they presumably relied a great deal on the notes of those at the March 19 White House briefing. Karl inaccurately quotes from one email, which may have been based on faulty note-taking or some other error. While this is significant, the email in question exists and has the same core content as the email quoted by Karl ó there was no wholesale fabrication.

Dumb Libs are willing to chase any squirrel to avoid talking about the failures of Obama.

The bankrupt assets of Hostess Brands, Inc., the company responsible for Twinkies, Ho Ho's, Sno Balls and Ding Dongs, are being put back to work by a buyout firm. What's not being put back to work are the former Hostess unionized employees.

" The differences between the two versions of the email have been overstated. At issue is the involvement of Ben Rhodes, a senior White House aide, in directing the various members of the inter-agency discussion to resolve their dispute.

Hereís the relevant part of the email as quoted by Karl:

We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we donít want to undermine the FBI investigation.

Hereís the relevant sentence from the real email:

We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.

The email is important because in the preceding email back-and-forth, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland had urged that references to terrorism be removed because they could be a political liability to State. Whether Rhodes said Nulandís objections should be accommodated explicitly or by implication is a difference, but itís a pretty small one."

So they were talking about State and the FBI in a previous email and then the next email states

" We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

Who in the world does the Dems think she was referring too? A question I have asked since they started this non-event.

Iím a member of the National Rifle Association and a former Army officer with assignments in the military police, artillery, and operations research and intelligence at the Pentagon.

Iím also Ted Nugentís older brother.

Ted and I recently attended the NRA convention in Houston, where he delivered the gatheringís final speech and continued his ardent defense of the Second Amendment. Ted and I have hunted together for decades, and we legally own a large number of guns. We both understand that guns constitute deadly force, so safety is foremost in our minds. Itís part of responsible gun ownership.

And I agree with Ted that our constitutional right to bear arms should not be undermined. I want all those who are qualified to purchase a gun to be able to do so. But ó and here is where I part ways with my brother ó not everyone is qualified to own a gun, so expanded background checks should be a legislative priority.

I believe strongly that expanding and improving mandatory background checks will keep a lot of people who arenít entitled to Second Amendment rights from having easy access to guns. As of today, a convicted felon can find a gun show or a private seller and buy a firearm without a background check. That loophole should be closed. Every gun transaction must include a thorough background check. Why would responsible gun owners want to protect people who threaten not only our safety but our gun rights?

The NRA has it wrong: Irresponsible gun owners are bad for everyone. If you shouldnít have access to a gun, then there should be no way for you to access a gun! Can anyone argue with that?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.